I found the questions more reasonable, along with the ability to individually weight each question a better methodology. The inclusion of so-called second tier candidates showed I was not in line with any of the picked front-runners.

Mike Gravel came in second. I didn't know who Gravel was until I checked his website, at which point I instantly remembered, "Oh yes, this is the former senator from Alaska who was highly recommended by my fellow JFK assassination researchers." So I read Gravel's bio, and was struck by the following statement, a statement which proves that it is possible for congresspeople to have a spine -- contrary to today's popular myth and example.

Quote:

In 1971, [Gravel] waged a successful one-man filibuster for five months that forced the Nixon administration to cut a deal, effectively ending the draft in the United States.

If you OR the candidate list an issue as unknown/other, no points are added or subtracted. This is very noteworthy as many candidates have issues listed as unknown/other. This will have the effect of pushing some candidates (some more than others) towards the middle of the list. It also often results in candidates being ranked higher than others that have less disagreements. Look at the list carefully and follow up by investigating the candidates further.

This could be why Edwards comes in after candidates I like less than him. As you can see, I have no particular love for any of the candidates this year.